RE:  JOSEFINA V. PALON, AN EMPLOYEE OF THIS COURT AS TO HER ALLEGED ACTIVE INTERVENTION IN RTC CASE NO. 90-55019 RELATIVE TO A.M. NO. RTJ-90-629.

This case arose from a complaint filed by Arnulfo Tauro against
Judge Joselito dela Rosa for serious misconduct, extreme bias and prejudice and
highly partisan attitude, anchoring his complaint on the affidavit of Mrs.
JOSEFINA V. PALON,^[1]
an employee of this Court.

The case of the respondent judge was dismissed per recommendation
of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), dated January 27, 1992. In the aforementioned recommendation, however, the OCA called the
Court’s attention on the actuation of Mrs. Palon, to wit:

“With regard to Ms. Josefina V. Palon, an employee of this
Court, who actively sought to interfere, as she did, with a case pending before
a trial court, bringing with her a large amount of money to the chambers of
respondent Judge, and exploiting her position as an employee of the Supreme
Court to gain access to respondent Judge, but who has not been formally charged
in connection therewith, we submit the matter to the Honorable Court for
further instructions.”^[2]

This prompted the Court to issue a resolution dated February 18,
1992, requiring Ms. Palon to file an answer regarding her alleged active
intervention in RTC Case No. 90-55019. After several motions for extension of time, she filed her answer
denying the accusation that she was using her influence as a Supreme Court
employee. According to her, a lady
personnel of the court over which Judge dela Rosa presides, was the one who
recognized her as an employee of the Supreme Court^[3] and
since the Clerk of Court, Atty. Solano, whom she really wanted to see was not
available at that time, the said lady allegedly urged her to enter the chambers
of the Judge and talk with him.

Mrs. Palon’s allegation is incredible to say the least,
considering that all employees in that sala are well aware of the respondent’s
judge policy against seeing litigants with cases in his sala. As a matter of fact, a sign hangs at the
door of the judge’s chambers which reads:

“Lawyers who have pending cases in this sala may see the
undersigned provided that the opposing counsel is present and if possible the
party litigants.”^[4]

Furthermore, the above narration is in conflict with her earlier
affidavit, wherein she stated that she “was informed by a Court personnel
that the Presiding Judge, Hon. JOSELITO DELA ROSA, wanted to talk to me inside his chamber,”^[5] which seems to insinuate that it
was the judge himself who initiated their meeting.

Mrs. Palon’s belated explanation of how she was introduced as an
employee of the Supreme Court and her assertion that she was advised to talk
with the respondent judge in the absence of
Atty. Solano, unsupported by any corroboration, lend credence to the
charges of influence-peddling and interference hurled by respondent judge. While it may be true that she “ran an
errand for her brother” to seek the respondent judge’s permission to
deposit complainant’s money with the Cashier of the City of Manila and to find
out the court’s action on the plaintiff’s motion for Execution Pending Appeal,
she need not have acted in the way she did.

Conduct required of court personnel must be beyond reproach and
must always be free from suspicion that may taint the judiciary. As this Court once held, “(t)he conduct
and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation
of justice, x x x, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be
circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. His conduct, at all time, must not only be
characterized with propriety and decorum but above all else must be above
suspicion.”^[6]
Thus, all court personnel are enjoined and required to comport themselves in
such manner as to avoid any taint of suspicion being cast on their actuations,
official or private.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Mrs. JOSEFINA V. PALON
having been found guilty of using her position as Supreme Court employee in
interfering with respondent judge’s jurisdiction over RTC Case No. 90-555019
forcing the latter to voluntarily inhibit himself from acting on said case on
December 14, 1990, is hereby SUSPENDED from the service for six months without
pay. Mrs. Palon is further WARNED that
similar infraction will be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this decision be attached to Mrs. Palon’s 201
records.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Melo, J., no part.

^[1]
Annex “A” of the Complaint.

^[2]
Memorandum from the Office of the Court Administrator, p. 6.

^[3]
Answer, p. 2.

^[4]
Comment, Paragraph 3 (f), p. 4.

^[5]
Annex “A”, par. 3.

^[6]
De la Cruz v. Ricaforte, AM P-90-486, 198 SCRA 763 (1991); Jereos, Jr. v.
Reblando, Sr., AM P-141, 71 SCRA 126 (1976).